Kodachrome Takes Its Final Bow Today 262
Ellis D. Tripp writes "Today marks the end of an era for photo geeks, with the shutdown of the world's last Kodachrome film processing line. Dwayne's Photo, of Parson, KS will pull the plug on their K-14 processing equipment at the end of business today."
Selling for scrap? (Score:3)
I hope they are just "selling" the processing equipment, not specifically "selling for scrap", as the article mentions. I would hope that SOMEONE would buy it to send to the Smithsonian or similar.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All n all its not that interesting an item for a museum, there are lots of other automated film processing and printing machines, so the "technology" is not going away exactly. Kodak is no longer going to produce the chemistry to process this type of film which makes it pretty impossible to use the machine in any way. Yes it might serve as a museum piece but I am not sure it warrants that.
Re: (Score:3)
Automobile technology isn't going away either, but that doesn't mean obsoleted automobiles aren't "interesting items" for museums. Especially automotive museums. (Car analogy enough for you?)
Re:Selling for scrap? (Score:4)
I'm just thinking that because Kodachrome is so "iconic" and historic piece of photography history, the processing machinery would be a good thing to have in a museum. Also, if it truly is the last one, it might be nice to keep one around, just in case. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolo_11_missing_tapes [wikipedia.org] for a case where keeping around the last machine proved useful. If something like this comes up, I'm sure SOMEBODY could whip up another batch of chemicals...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure there must be several photography museums in this world.
I have a picture of one, if that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Selling for scrap? (Score:5, Informative)
You can do D-76 processing in your bathroom with strong coffee, and the right off-the-shelf equipment.
You can do C-41 processing in your basement with the right chemicals and off-the-shelf equipment.
K-14 is another beast entirely and demands all kind of proprietary chems that you simply cannot find because they no longer exist. Even if you had the chemicals, you wouldn't have the equipment process the images properly.
What really needed to happen here was another instance of someone pulling together The Impossible Project [the-imposs...roject.com] which (thanks to a chance meeting at a bar) salvaged the last Polaroid processing equipment riiiiiiight before it was to be scrapped, and then reverse-engineered the chemicals needed to produce and develop the film.
(Note: I don't have any financial stake in their success, but I have to say the staff at the IP are amazing, and some of the nicest bunch of people I've dealt with in the photo world. Please give them your business.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kodak at one point made an automated Kodachrome minilab, the K-Lab, which was intended to make processing more widely available:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/klabs/index.shtml [kodak.com]
Unfortunately it never really took off, and one was up for sale for several years with no takers:
http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/equipment/klab.htm [rockymountainfilm.com]
The day before it waa due to be scrapped, an enthusiast stepped in and bought it, and is now hoping to get it running again:
http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthr [kodachromeproject.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like you're talking about other color film, like Ektachrome or something. Those are still being manufactured and anyone can develop it, even if it's more difficult than B&W for amateurs. Kodachrome uses a significantly different and much more complicated process which requires different equipment, knowledge, and chemicals. I don't really know what the exact procedure is, and probably very few people do. Up to this point there was only a handful of labs in the world that could actually develop t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx [alienskin.com]
examples of the Exposure filters:
http://www.grafnet.com.pl/index.php/plug-ins/category/84-exposure.html [grafnet.com.pl]
Paul Simon / Kodachrome (Score:5, Insightful)
When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall
Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match
My sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white
Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
(Leave your boy so far from home)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't think he's suffered.
I mean, he did bone Princess Leia. Several times.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad he mentioned the Nikon camera, otherwise Eastman Kodak and he could've worked out a mutually beneficial advertising arrangement that would've lasted decades.
I doubt that'd be a hindrance. For one thing they wouldn't use a complete song in an ad, so the Nikon reference wouldn't come into play. Plus the two companies have worked together in the past - Kodak's digital SLRs used Nikon's F mount, for example.
Also Nikon, along with almost every other camera manufacturer, still uses patented Kodak sensor technology.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. Nothing? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I did, and somehow I ended up with a link back to /.? WTF?
-jcr
Ayyyeee! Run for your lives!
The Singularity is here!
Original story from the New York Times (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Still needs the proper referrer set. Punch that URL into google and follow that link OR:
PARSONS, Kan. — An unlikely pilgrimage is under way to Dwayne’s Photo, a small family business that has through luck and persistence become the last processor in the world of Kodachrome, the first successful color film and still the most beloved.
That celebrated 75-year run from mainstream to niche photography is scheduled to come to an end on Thursday when the last processing machine is shut down here to be s
Bah (Score:2)
It pisses me off that the majority of people crying about this (and the demise of colour films in general) are mostly the ones who scour eBay for expired rolls with which to stock their fridges, instead of buying fresh packs of film, demonstrating to the manufacturers that there is actual demand for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Kodachrome itself is difficult and expensive to develop. Other color films are still alive (Fuji Velvia 50 was actually introduced in 2007. Well, re-introduced, but it shows that there is demand for it).
Re:Bah (Score:5, Informative)
Fuji currently makes several positive and negative type films. They also make a color-neutral type for professional use that looks as dull and washed out as our eyes generally see. The differences between Kodachrome and Provia are fairly minor, to be honest. Kodachrome was actually a black and white film that had color added to it, so it requitred special chemistry and had a curiously super-saturated blue tint (it's more reactive to blue than most any other film.
http://www.soerink.nl/film/film.html [soerink.nl]
You'll note the 3.7 value for blue on Kodachrome. But realistic it's not.
http://www.maremmaphoto.it/filmtest.eng.html [maremmaphoto.it]
Close, but not quite.
I use Fuji NPS 160/160S, though, as it's spot-on realistic to what your eyes see. Slightly dimmer blues and not as punchy (I find Velvia garish, like a poster, almost). But very nice, especially for portraits.
NOTE: Fujifilm USA stops importing film from Japan if the numbers get too low. In most cases, though, the film is still made in Japan - you have to sometimes order from a shop that deals directly with Japan or import it. (the same is true for Agfa as well)
Re: (Score:2)
All colour films are black and white films with colour added to them, and require special chemistry.
Re: (Score:3)
You disdain is misplaced. Kodachrome is a slide film or a colour positive. The reason for its demise began before digital cameras came along and starts with the fact that people just don't find time to sit around looking at slide shows. The 35mm film speed was ASA64 or ASA200 which was slow compared to the 400 and 800 print films that are available today. Finally, processing requires mailing it away and people have given that up as an acceptable practice. In the 1970's, Kodachrome film came with a
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you can say MANY things about Kodachrome, but color accuracy was never one of its strong spots.
Re: (Score:2)
Color film is great, but for most purposes digital at this point can meet or beat it for most uses. That being said, I have a soft spot for Fuji films. Reala and IIRC provia. Fuji does a really good job with films and technologies for portrait photography. Even now, if you want to take portraits, Fuji should be near the top of your li
Farewell Kodachrome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If only the Kodachrome plugin for PhotoShop could make actual slides that you can project. I haven't seen a digital projector that can touch the quality of a projected slide yet.
Alternative ways to develop? (Score:2)
Do you actually need to process this a certain way, or can you just like scan the negatives(??) in and fix the colors?
I know absolutely nothing about photography.
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup; my dad still has Kodachrome slides from back in the 60s? 50s? It's the only film he's ever used that kept its color.
Every other film has faded and lost color.... There's a reason the stuff is expensive. I haven't used it in 20 years, but it still saddens me to see something that good die.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently scanned a large number of slides my parents shot over the decades. All the Kodachrome slides looked like brand new when directly viewed. However, the dyes used in the film interact with scanner sensors to give a very heavy blue cast to the results that need to be fixed up with post processing.
In my case, most of the Ektachrome slides taken before the mid 1960s were heavily faded to a muddy brown, and a few were almost unviewable. Ektachrome slides taken in the mid 1960s and later generally looked
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the process Kodachrome uses to produce the color is still based on the fundamental instability which plagues all chromogenic systems- even though the dye coupler is not in the emulsion(as would be the case with Kodacolor and Ektachrome), the fact is that the process is still the same. A dye coupler combines with developing agent by-products in proportion to the amount of underlying silver that is developed. I've always wondered how Kodachrome achieved greater archival permanence; maybe it is because the coupler/developing agent byproduct reaction happens only in processing and the dye coupler does not have a chance to become spoiled while unused sitting in an emulsion.
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Interesting)
...One effect of this is that the dyes in Kodachrome are much longer lasting than those in other transparency films (the ones developed using the E-6 process).
In the 1960s, this was correct. In the meantime Kodachrome has stayed much the same, while E-6 films have improved. Modern slide film is as fade-resistant as Kodachrome was, and is much easier to live with. I develop Ektachrome in my bathroom with a daylight tank. And a big tub of warm water and a thermometer.
I've tried my own C-41 processing, but it's a bit temperamental. Since you develop for 3 minutes 15 seconds at 38 degrees, your agitation must be perfect to avoid streaks and spots and stuff.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right about the E-6 films being easier to live with. I used to do sink-line E-6 sheet film processing, and for an extra fee we could even adjust the first developer time by inspection!
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Informative)
Just shows you how far we've come with digital photography that we actually have /.ers who don't know how film works.
Film before it is developed is light-sensitive. Developing film fixes the image on the negative and makes it no longer light-sensitive. If you scan undeveloped film you'll just get an image of gray, and you'll also expose the film to intense light which means whatever was on it is lost.
Different kinds of film require different kinds of processes to develop them (since the chemistry is different). Color film is particularly fussy about such things. Once the film is developed you get a negative and there are lots of directions you can go from there. Unless you're doing something exotic there is pretty-much only one right way to develop any particular kind of film.
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point... but is there really no way to scan it?
Traditional consumer scanners obviously use intense white light, but could it not be possible to develop a scanner using some other spectrum of light that the film is not sensitive too? I am thinking that since the processing equipment is being scrapped, what would happen if we had something we wanted to develop 50 years from now?
I guess what I am thinking is that the information is there in the film and that scanning it with a different spectrum wou
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it there are specific chemicals needed because they are applied after the negative is created and Kodak is the only people that make them (and know how). So even if you bought the equipment you would have no way to develop film because you would have the same problem as the current owner of the equipment..which is getting the chemicals.
In a story on TV the owner said he was doing GREAT business developing Kodachrome film but that he would not be able to get the chemicals anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is developing the negatives. In chemical photography, you don't just expose a piece of film to light and poof! it's a negative. You have to expose the film to light briefly, then keep it in the dark. Then you have to run it through a series of chemical baths that take the molecules of the film that were altered by the light, and "fix" them so they won't be altered by light anymore, while removing the molecules that were NOT altered because no light hit them, to grossly simplify the process. (even
Re: (Score:2)
So you might be able to scan a developed Kodachrome negative on a good film scanner[...]
That would be a good trick, since there is no such thing as a Kodachrome negative. It's a positive film.
know nothing about film photography? (Score:2)
First, you have to develop the film to get any kind of image at all.
Well, okay, theoretically, you could scan the film, but not with any ordinary scanner. The light from the scanner, you see, would wash the image right out.
You have to develop film to bring the image out into a form that is visible to the unaided/untrained eye. Developing also stabilizes the image so that further exposure to light doesn't wash it out.
Places to educate yourself even further (regards negative and positive process film, etc.):
k [wikipedia.org]
Re:Alternative ways to develop? (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of Kodachrome, developing the film produces a POSITIVE image. Kodachrome was a slide film, afterall.
The processing for Kodachrome is FAR more involved than other slide films, because the color dyes are actually added during the processing, rather than being present in the unexposed film itself.
I had two rolls in for the final processing (Score:5, Interesting)
Kodachrome is hard film to use; I gave up trying to take indoor photos with it years ago. I have continued to use it (about 25 rolls in the last two years), mostly because the quality of the images is obviously different from modern film or digital, and evokes nostalgia in older viewers. And I liked the bragging rights. It's no surprise that Kodachrome is gone; Kodak had been phasing it out for years -- first killing the larger format versions, then the iso25 and iso200 variants, and the motion picture film. The economics just weren't there; virtually every other color film uses identical (C41 or E6) processing chemicals, and Kodachrome used a different and apparently more toxic set. Without scale, it was more expensive to buy and process than other color films, and the emulsion can't even be scanned by most slide scanners. You're left with only nostalgia and archival properties to drive sales, enough for a small specialty chemical company perhaps, but not for Kodak.
Re:I had two rolls in for the final processing (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe its time for a new 35mm film? (Score:2)
I know that most photography has gone digital, but there are enough 35mm cameras still having shutters snap that I wonder if there would be a market for a new type of color film in various ISOs. Something designed for modern use, using as non-toxic chemicals as possible (probably not likely), and perhaps with as small a grain as possible, so one wouldn't have to go with a Hasselblad or medium format to make a 11x17 with ISO 800 film.
This might be impossible, but film has a number of things over even the be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, I'm not personally thrilled with having to hand over that portion of the process to somebody else to handle. And I haven't go
Re: (Score:2)
256 gradients? I thought with a 16bit capture that number was... well, a LOT higher. I have read that the technical specs of digital have surpassed film a couple of years ago. The ONE thing that I know film can do better, is star-trail shots. Digital sensors warm up over time, and can't take REALLY extended shots.
(There is software to simulate it, but it is not really, the real thing)
Re: (Score:2)
You cool the sensor then, telescopes do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DAMN... yea, that's hard core. :-) Though, I think the % of income argument can be made against photography in general, especially when you move up to GOOD glass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(There is software to simulate it, but it is not really, the real thing)
Actually, it's the other way around. Astronomers were some of the first people on board for the digital backs, and they ordered some huge ones (sometimes having to resort to matrices of them...), but even amateur astronomers have been using electronic sensors for a long time now because of the benefit you get with long-term exposures (and quantum efficiency, but that's another matter to discuss some other time.)
And that benefit is that when you're stacking your images into a longer exposure, you can throw
Re: (Score:2)
With modern cameras having increased color depth the gradients are becoming less of an issue. Also, while film is analog that doesn't mean that it can accurately distinguish arbitrarily close shades of color. If you took a photo of two light sources that were only slightly different in intensity at some point you couldn't tell the difference with film.
I think the biggest problem you're going to run into is supply and demand. Is there really enough demand out there for a fancy new film chemistry that peop
Re: (Score:2)
Kodak Ektar 100, which was launched about 2 years ago, is maybe the closest current film to what you're suggesting. It's very fine-grained and designed for scanning, though you only get ISO 100, and the chemistry is standard C41 colour negative (which realistically it has to be - nobody is going to do R&D on an entirely new film process at this point, and finding decent local processing is already hard enough):
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=13328 [kodak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This might be impossible, but film has a number of things over even the best digital cameras. From color gradients (256 levels of RGB versus infinite),
Actually, regular 8-bit color in photography means that you have 8 bits per color channel which adds up to 24 bits and 16 777 216 possible colors in your palette. With 16 bit RAW images you have 281 474 976 710 656 possible colors. Not quite infinite but close enough as long as you don't insist on taking only really poorly composed shots.
...to the fact that it is quite difficult to doctor film without that being detected (at least easier than firing up Photoshop.)
Personally I find this to be an advantage of digital, even if I slightly botch a picture I can easily fix it in Aperture/Lightroom. It also lessens the reliance on a third
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe its time for a new 35mm film? (Score:5, Funny)
I predict Kodak and Fuji will be out of the film business by the end of the decade.
The end of the decade is about 1 day, 7 hours, and 25 minutes from now.
Re: (Score:3)
So you view decades by 01-10? and not 00-09? The first decade of 2010 ended one year ago.
Decades numbered from 01-10 are technically more correct. This unfortunate situation is due to the fact that the monk Dionysius Exiguus was definitely not a C programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming that the first decade only had 9 years?
Re:Maybe its time for a new 35mm film? (Score:4)
The first decade of 2010 ended one year ago.
{ Face palm }
Remaining inventory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Remaining inventory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I just went to the refrigerator and removed 25 rolls of Kodachrome 64 36 exp. -- paid $8.20 per roll ($205 total). They've been in there since 2002. I've been meaning to shoot them ever since Kodak made their announcement last year but alas work prevented me from taking two scheduled vacations this year to do so. Sigh. I suppose now there's nothing left to do with it except throw it away.
One word - eBay.
Okay that's actually three words. And now it's twelve.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can hand process it as a black and white film. Not a complete waste! I shot my first and only roll of 16mm Kodachrome a couple weeks ago and sent it the other day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Remaining inventory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can stillmdevelop it, it'll just be black and white.
ebay (Score:2)
Hmm. The process is known, but it is complicated (tricky, it sounds like, since you have to re-expose the film several times to different colors of light (which may be part of the reason for the vivid colors?)) and use chemicals even more poisonous than those used in the more common processes.
But I'm going to guess that there will be amateurs/independents who try to reproduce the process for those people whose rolls didn't make it to Dwayne's in time for the last cans of the official chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. There's a guy in New Mexico who got a hold of one of the last k-lab machines and is looking to get it operational, but Kodak has kept the chemical formulas for the dye couplers locked up tight. Maybe with the end of official processing that will change.
Quick! (Score:2)
Find those rolls in the back of the closet and send them in!
Clueless on eBay (Score:2)
I'm amused at the apparently clueless people on eBay bidding against each other for film that can no longer be processed. There are several examples of multiple bids on auctions for unexposed film ending tomorrow.
*sigh* (Score:2)
Another hit for the analog world. In a few more years, real quality will just be a distant memory and all we will have are 'samples'.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, large format film still has the edge qhen it comes to resolution, but I have no doubt that digital technologies will exceed even what film can offer. It will do this, mind you, while maintaining all the other things digital information has going for it (cheap to store, easy to copy, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
If you're thinking that digital photography lacks the "continuous" qualities that film has, think again. All of our recording media is, at some level, discrete. The difference is that film is not digital.
Ah, but film is digital. Single grains of silver halide are the fundamental capture element, and once a given grain absorbs a photon, through magic I don't quite recall that involves cascading electrons through the crystal, the entire grain changes state from unexposed to exposed. The density for a given region and color layer is determined by how many of the grains in the area were exposed. It's very, very digital, just not spatially regular.
CBS news covers the passing of Kodachrome.. (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPvF1MOU2kE [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's an 8-track? 8-tracks were well-known for their horrible reliability and sound. If the machine was being used in a studio setting, it is more likely a Fidelipack, which was widely used in radio stations to record and play back station id, commercials, and the odd song.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From a technology standpoint, Kodachrome has just as much reason to still be around as the 8-track cassette - none.
Technically, Kodachrome film has no equal. Some of the newer films (like Fuji Velvia) can begin to approach it for initial image quality, but absolutely NOTHING comes anywhere near Kodachrome for permanence of the finished image. 50 year old Kodachrome slides often look just as good today, even without special storage conditions.
8-track audio cassettes, OTOH, were crap from day one. Packing 8 8 audio tracks across a single piece of 1/4" tape resulted in lots of background noise, bleedthrough into adjacent t
Re: (Score:2)
"NOTHING comes anywhere near Kodachrome for permanence of the finished image. 50 year old Kodachrome slides often look just as good today, even without special storage conditions."
Lemme check. (pulls slide out of box). Kodachrome? Check. Oh, purple shift? Check. Bleh.
Fuck film. Yeah digital.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you're not thinking of Kodak's Ektachrome rather than actual Kodachrome? Ektachrome fades horribly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good Riddence! (Score:5, Funny)
On that topic, I still say only the original Edison wax cylinders had true audio fidelity. Vinyl is just a cheap knockoff, trading convenience for quality.
Re:Good Riddence! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue some 'romantic' shit about how Kodachrome has some unmeasurable orgasmic quality over anything else...
It doesn't have to be "romantic shit." Kodachrome does have qualities that are different from anything else. Irreplaceable qualities? Unreproducible qualities? Maybe not. But until you've tried to shoot actual creative photographs (as opposed to "I wanna see this later" snapshots), you don't understand what a complex and highly analog process it is -- even for digital cameras.
Between shutter speeds, apertures, film ISO, lenses, flash timings, and just plain holding the camera in the right place at the right time, there are a lot of variables. In film stock there are variables also, much like how two different digital SLR cameras will produce different-looking pictures of the same thing under the same lighting conditions.
Can you fiddle with an exposure in Photoshop until most film snobs would swear it's a Kodachrome image? Sure. Is that a worthwhile way to spend your time? You tell me.
Bottom line: No, if you hand a roll of Kodachrome to an inexperienced photographer, he's not going to be able to take any better pictures than he would with any other film. On the other hand, in the hands of an experience photographer who understands Kodachrome and knows how to get what he wants from it, the film stock can make the difference between an OK photograph and a great one. It's kind of like playing an electric guitar: Whether your amp is tube or solid-state, your guitar and your amp -- in your hands -- is going to sound different from the guy down the street's. You play what works for you.
Kodachrome "worked" for a lot of photographers for many years. That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes [nynetresources.org] that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
Romantic shit (Score:2)
Yeah, I too remember Kodachrome 25 from my 35mm film SLR days. I loved that film—if you had enough light, a fast lens, and the right kind of subject, you could get some astonishing shots. As someone remarked, it's probably all in the dyes and process...it just seemed like magic to me. The colors were intense, but they looked right, somehow.
FYI, the Afghan girl's eyes look grey when I look at the picture on this crappy LCD monitor I'm using.
Re: (Score:2)
That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes [nynetresources.org] that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Kodachrome is just a medium through which create works of art. There's nothing wrong with lamenting its loss, but it's now a dead technology. There are countless other uninvented film types, and now there is just one more.
Digital, on the other hand, is virtually infinite in its variability. It can emulate any type of film you'd like, including not just Kodachrome, but also any of those other count
Re: (Score:2)
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Pretty sure National Geographic wasn't doing digital publishing in 1984, but I get your point. But so what?
Chances are, you've never seen the "Mona Lisa." I've seen it. But unless you've been to Paris, France and stood in line at the Louvre, you probably haven't. You've only ever seen it in print or in digital, and either way that was probably transferred from a second intermediate step, film.
So could a modern-day Leonardo create the "Mona Lisa" entirely using digital tools? Sure. Didn't I say that in my or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a time for people like me to be a bit nostalgic and teary, but improvements and inventions and such mean that this is inevitable. I loved the Kodachrome
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh....
He was making a joke about Chrome (the browser). Maybe a bit too subtle...
Re: (Score:3)
He was making a joke about Chrome (the browser). Maybe a bit too subtle...
It doesn't really count as "subtle" if the reason that it wasn't obvious as a joke was that it was neither good, insightful nor funny.
I don't think "Kodachrome" and "Chrome" (whichever meaning of the latter you choose) are likely to get confused. No-one commonly nicknamed or abbreviated the former "Chrome", likely because it'd get confused with lots of other slide films whose names ended in "Chrome".
Re: (Score:2)